CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant appeals his convictions for two counts of unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a); counts 3 & 9); four counts of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a), 496d, subd. (a); counts 4, 10, 14 & 15); five counts of vehicle burglary (Pen. Code, 459; counts 5, 8 & 11-13); assault on a peace officer (Pen. Code, 240; count 1); resisting arrest by attempting to remove a firearm (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (d)(1); count 2); obstructing or resisting peace officers (Pen. Code, 69; count 7); possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a); count 6); and possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (b); count 16). He contends that he was prejudiced because the trial court failed to appropriately instruct the jury on the use of circumstantial evidence (CALJIC No. 2.01) and that the trial court violated Penal Code section 654[1]by not staying execution of sentence on the assault conviction (count 1). The judgment is affirmed.

In these consolidated appeals, defendants Alton and Loretta Perkins (husband and wife) appeal in propria persona from an order of the San Francisco Superior Court denying their motion to set aside their default (Code Civ. Proc., 473 ) in an action against them and various corporate entities by plaintiff Intagio Trading Network, Inc. (No. A111128). Appellants also appeal the courts later denial of their motion to vacate and set aside a void judgment (No. A112104). Court affirm the order in A111128, and vacate the order in A112104, as the court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering that order while the appeal in A111128 was pending.

Appellant Leron Leon Morris (Morris) was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of first degree residential robbery. He claims on appeal that the court erred in admitting his pretrial statements to police. Morris also asserts that the court erred in its instructions to the jury on conspiracy, robbery and aiding and abetting. Finally, he argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.

This matter comes to us on remand from the California Supreme Court, with directions to vacate [our] decision and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Crandell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1301 [Crandell] . . . .
Appellant John Leroy Clemons pled guilty to charges of possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, 14601.1). The court sentenced him to serve a total of five years in state prison, and imposed fines totaling $3,900, with a $1,200 fine stayed pending completion of parole. The court later modified the restitution component of the sentence, reducing the total fines to $2,900, with a $1,000 fine stayed pending completion of parole. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence; (2) imposing a sentencing enhancement for appellants prior drug conviction under the mistaken belief that it was mandatory to do so; (3) imposing a laboratory fee, drug program fee and fine for the Vehicle Code section 14601.1 conviction, and associated penalty assessments; and (4) imposing a restitution fine.
The abstract of judgment is to be amended to reflect a $10 reduction in the penalty assessment imposed in connection with the fee under Vehicle Code section 14601.1. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Phong Nguyen appeals from a judgment of conviction of seven counts of forcible lewd acts upon a minor (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (b)(1)),[1]one count of mayhem ( 203), and sentencing enhancements based upon the fact that the forcible lewd act counts involved multiple victims ( 667.61, subd. (b), 667.6, subd. (d)).) He contends that the trial court erred because (1) it admitted hearsay statements of the two sexual abuse victims; and (2) it failed to give lesser included offense instructions with respect to the mayhem charge. Court reject these arguments and affirm the conviction.

Eric Garrison appeals his jury conviction for possession of cocaine base. He argues his conviction must be reversed because the trial court declined to suppress evidence that officers discovered cocaine base among his belongings during an inventory search. Court affirm.

After a contested hearing, the juvenile court denied a motion to suppress evidence and found true allegations that minor D.H. was in possession of ecstasy (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, hereafter MDMA) and marijuana. On appeal, D.H. contends the court erred when it (1) denied the suppression motion; and (2) admitted evidence of a forensic analysis performed on the suspected drugs. He also asserts the evidence was insufficient to prove he possessed MDMA in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350. Court agree on the latter point and therefore reverse the true findings on count I of the petition. In all other respects, Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Pius Lee (Lee) appeals the trial courts denial in part of his special motion to strike (Code of Civil Procedure 425.16) plaintiff and respondent Yee Keung Sius (Siu) First Amended Complaint (FAC). Court affirm in part and reverse in part.

A. D. (mother) appeals from an order by the juvenile court terminating her parental rights over her son Gerardo A. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.) She contends the judgment must be reversed because the evidence did not establish that it was likely Gerardo would be adopted. Court affirm.

Defendant Megan Doreen Laramore timely appeals from a March 29, 2007 judgment sentencing her to two years in prison after she pled no contest to violating Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) by possessing methamphetamine, and after she admitted violating probation three times. In her notice of appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to withdraw her plea because her plea was involuntary in that counsel left her no choice but to enter her no contest plea by refusing to consider her explanations in prep[a]ration for a trial defense. Defendants appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no potentially arguable issues. Counsel has also advised defendant of her right to file a supplemental brief, which defendant has not done. Court have reviewed the entire record and agree with counsels assessment. Court conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion to withdraw her plea. (People v. Weaver (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 131, 146 [denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard].) Court also conclude that there is no issue warranting further briefing.

The factual underpinnings of this case involve allegations by Westland and Valentine that Matthews breached his fiduciary duties, including the duty of loyalty, and committed legal malpractice. At trial, there was conflicting evidence as to who Matthews represented and when. There were disputes over the authenticity of documents and confusing evidence as to when Valentine was an officer of Westland. The jury found that Matthews represented Westland until May 15, 1999, the date Retra agreed to buy the option from Westland. This finding was consistent with Matthewss testimony. Court hold: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the posttrial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial; (2) Westland and Valentine have not shown error with regard to the award against them for compensatory damages on the slander of title cause of action, however, the trial court erred in awarding Retra punitive damages on that cause of action; and (3) the trial court correctly denied Matthewss motion for directed verdict. Court remand to the trial court and direct it to (1) reinstate the jury verdict on the complaint in the sum of $2,016,709 in favor of Westland against Matthews and his law firm, Matthews & Partners, and (2) strike the $20,000 punitive damage award in favor of Retra on the slander of title cause of action. In all other respects Court affirm.

Kathy M. Risner (Risner) appeals from a final judgment entered after a jury trial in favor of Freid and Goldsman, PLC, and Manley Freid (collectively F & G), in the amount of $246,707.38. Risner also appeals a separate award of attorney fees and costs entered in favor of F & G in the amount of $91,002.85. F & G cross-appealed from the attorney fee and cost award. Court reverse and remand for further proceedings the trial courts award of prejudgment interest but affirm the judgment in all other respects. Court also affirm the attorney fee and cost award.

Defendant and respondent Edward Elio Galantes attorney, Simon Bull, obtained a writ of arrest in Zimbabwe against plaintiff and appellant Topaz Summerfield, as part of Galantes attempt to recover property from his estranged wife, who is Topazs sister. Topaz and her infant daughter, plaintiff and appellant Sable Summerfield, were arrested and incarcerated after Zimbabwe authorities arrived to serve the writ of arrest. A Zimbabwe judge later ruled that there was no factual basis for the writ of arrest as to Topaz. Upon their return, Topaz and Sable filed an action against Galante in Los Angeles.we reverse the judgment as to the causes of action for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious continuation of a civil proceeding. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant Anthony Bravo was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of possessing an assault weapon in violation of Penal Code section 12280, subdivision (b),[1]one count of possessing a firearm while having a prior conviction in violation of section 12021.1 and one count of possessing ammunition in violation of section 12316, subdivision (b)(1). The trial court found true the allegations that appellant had suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court sentenced appellant to a total term in prison of 25 years to life.
Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court erred in the procedure it followed in ruling on his motions to suppress evidence and to quash and traverse the warrant, and further contending that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for possession of ammunition. He also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike one of his prior convictions. Court affirm the judgment of conviction.